Subject: Re: 10th serial port
To: Manuel Bouyer <email@example.com>
From: Berndt Josef Wulf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/15/2000 23:31:26
Manuel Bouyer wrote
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 11:08:02PM +0930, Berndt Josef Wulf wrote:
> > True, but...
> > Are there any reasons why the second digit isn't used? In this
> > case ttyff would become port 256, more than enough to build a fancy
> > terminal server.
> > To my knowledge, there are no definitions for ttyaX, ttybX, ttycX,
> > ttydX, ttyeX and ttyfX (X being a numerical value).
> > So why not defining serial ports in the range of tty[0..f][0..f]?
> I think we should avoid letters for true serial ports, letters have been
> used for various pseudo-tty already (ttyp0, ttyv0, ttyE0, I think we
> also have ttyC0 around).
We are already using hexadecimals for pseudo-tty e.g.
...ttyqa, ttyqb, ttyqc...,
I simply can't see any reason why it should be different for reall
serial devices... We support the cyclades multi-serial port cards with
up to 64 ports... 4 cards will give 256 serial ports and personally
I would hate to see the highest port being called tty0255... ;-)
Name : Berndt Josef Wulf | +++ With BSD on Packet Radio +++
E-Mail : email@example.com | tfkiss, tnt, dpbox, wampes
ICQ : 18196098 | VK5ABN, Nairne, South Australia
URL : http://www.ping.net.au/~wulf | MBOX : vk5abn@vk5abn.#lmr.#sa.au.oc
Sysinfo : DEC AXPpci33+, NetBSD-1.4.2 | BBS : vk5abn.#lmr.#sa.aus.oc